Orthostatic hypertension and major adverse events: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: The role of orthostatic hypertension (OHT) in cardiovascular disease (CVD) and mortality is unclear. We aimed to determine if this association exists through a systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS AND RESULTS: Study inclusion criteria included: (i) any observational/interventional studies of participants aged ≥18 years (ii) that assessed the relationship between OHT and (iii) at least one outcome measure-all-cause mortality (primary outcome), coronary heart disease, heart failure, stroke/cerebrovascular disease, or neurocognitive decline. MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, clinicaltrials.gov, and PubMed were independently searched by two reviewers (inception-19 April 2022). Critical appraisals were conducted using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Random-effects meta-analysis was performed using a generic inverse variance method, and narrative synthesis or pooled results were presented as an odds or hazards ratio (OR/HR), with 95% confidence interval. Twenty studies (n = 61 669; 47.3% women) were eligible, of which 13 were included in the meta-analysis (n = 55 456; 47.3% women). Median interquartile range (IQR) follow-up for prospective studies was 7.85 (4.12, 10.83) years. Eleven studies were of good quality, eight fair, and one poor. Relative to orthostatic normotension (ONT), systolic OHT (SOHT) was associated with a significant 21% greater risk of all-cause mortality (HR: 1.21, 1.05-1.40), 39% increased risk of CVD mortality based on two studies (HR: 1.39, 1.05-1.84), and near doubled odds of stroke/cerebrovascular disease (OR: 1.94, 1.52-2.48). The lack of association with other outcomes may be due to weak evidence or low statistical power. CONCLUSION: Patients with SOHT may have higher mortality risk relative to those with ONT and increased odds of stroke/cerebrovascular disease. Whether interventions can reduce OHT and improve outcomes should be explored.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.016 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.035 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".